compare
Two strategies, side by side.
Pick any two strategies. See who endorses each, the tier mix of endorsers, the p(doom) distribution, and which people endorse both. Useful for asking are these strategies actually opposed, or does this disagreement live in builders, in policy, or in the public square.
Stance defaults to live engagement: endorses, mixed, conditional, or evolved-toward. These are people who treat the strategy as a live bet of theirs at any time. Opposers are listed separately.
Near-term harms first
36 endorsers · 0 opposeDocumented present harms outweigh speculative existential narratives
expertise mix
recognition mix
profiled
1/36
mean p(doom)
·
quotes
38
AI skeptic
81 endorsers · 2 opposeAGI risk narratives overstated; real harms are mundane and current
expertise mix
recognition mix
profiled
35/81
mean p(doom)
0%
n=1
quotes
97
where the disagreement lives
Tier shares within profiled endorsers. Positive shift means the tier is over-represented in Near-term harms first; negative means it's over-represented in AI skeptic.
Near-term harms first skews these tiers
- Field-leading+49pp
- Deep technical+43pp
AI skeptic skews these tiers
- Household name+46pp
- External-domain expert+29pp
endorse both (1)
Near-term harms first only (35)